Disturbing Doctors

ve8QAd   |   September 20, 2013

The Latest News Archive 2013

Disturbing doctors

You trust your doctor with your care. Those in the medical profession are supposed to be healers, not killers. However, there are so-called doctors who’re more willing to advocate for the cause of abortion, than they are for your health.

In this month’s issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, there’s a troubling article entitled, “A statement on abortion by 100 professors of obstetrics: 40 years later.” This piece restates an account that was published by 100 obstetrics and gynecology leaders in anticipation of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision. In it, they made several predictions, as well as recommendations, regarding what the legalization of abortion would mean. The new version is also signed by 100 OBGYN professionals and reports on the accuracy of those claims and juxtaposes its own opinions regarding the state of the abortion industry today.

The group begins by praising the advancements in the field of abortion, particularly the use of the chemical abortion pill. Since its approval in 1999, it’s estimated that RU 486 is responsible for ending the lives of nearly two million children. While it’s promoted as a safer and simpler procedure, chemical abortions usually cause a woman to experience extreme pain and cramping, prolonged heavy bleeding or hemorrhaging and sometimes serious, even life-threatening, infections. The use of sonograms is applauded by the group as another advancement, but not to be used for the unborn child. In the abortion industry it’s used for guidance during abortion procedures. Somehow, this is considered an advancement in women’s health.

What the original writers didn’t anticipate are the legislative limitations that have been put on abortion. The current authors are quick to assail any type of common sense protection either for the baby or the woman having the abortion. Waiting periods are called a threat to women’s health. Counseling is considered a deceptive practice. Fetal heartbeat or ultrasound requirements are deemed unnecessary procedures. Laws that limit second-trimester abortion are regarded as misleading. Even regulations to protect patient safety are thought of as a “guise.” Most appalling is the assertion that minors shouldn’t be required to obtain parental notification or consent. It states, “…any girl who is physically mature enough to conceive should, ipso facto, be granted the freedom to determine the fate of her pregnancies.” These aggressive positions bring into question, whose interests are being protected—the patient’s or the abortion industry’s?

They aren’t just advocating for more abortion; they’re declaring that it should be funded by your tax dollars, making abortion “equally available to the rich and the poor.” Currently, the Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal dollars for abortion. Yet, Planned Parenthood works around that law by using tax dollars to keep the lights on and other expenses, freeing up additional monies and other income to use directly for abortions. Under Obamacare, we’re at risk for further abortion expansion.

The article also addresses issues of conscience. Thankfully, there are laws currently in place that protect physicians from actions contrary to their conscience. However, this select group seeks to change that. In regard to a physician’s duty to counsel, it states, “There are patients who should be actively encouraged to consider abortion.” (emphasis mine) It claims that advancements in prenatal diagnosis “give obstetricians the opportunity and responsibility to make patients aware of a wide range of genetic anomalies and to offer abortion.” This type of mentality has resulted in 90% of children prenatally diagnosed with Down syndrome to be killed before they even had the opportunity to be born. If a doctor objects to abortion, they advise, “these physicians must be excused from performing abortion but must refer patients to colleagues.” In other words, they expect such a physician to violate his or her conscience.

In addition, they falsely claim that it’s unlikely nurses will refuse to provide abortion services. On our pro-life TV program, Facing Life Head-On, I personally met with 5 of 12 nurses from a New Jersey hospital who opposed a mandate for all nursing staff to participate in care for abortion patients. They were bullied and sought legal representation to help them confront hospital administration. These women risked their jobs and livelihood to stand up for their beliefs, and I’m convinced that these ladies are not in the minority.

While stating that 1 in 4 pregnancies end in abortion, these pro-abortion activist physicians are simultaneously pushing that number to be higher by claiming there’s a need for more access. It’s disturbing to consider the implications for the women under their care. If you’re looking for a pro-life doctor, organizations like the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists are there to help. It’s tragic that with many doctors the burden is on you to be your own advocate, to guard your health, uphold your conscience and protect the life of your unborn baby.

For the health of women and babies,
Bradley Mattes
Life Issues Institute

Life Issues Institute is dedicated to changing hearts and minds of millions of people through education. Organizations and individuals around the world depend upon Life Issues Institute to provide the latest information and effective tools to protect innocent human life from womb to tomb.


Receive information like this – in your Inbox.
Subscribe to our email updates here.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest News

From our articles & videos

View all

June 20, 2024

Abortion Survivors

For years the pro-abortion lobby has run with the slogan that “it’s just a clump of cells.” This attempt to...

Read More

June 13, 2024

Rejected on a Technicality

The much-anticipated ruling on chemical abortion pills by the US Supreme Court was an enormous disappointment, but we can still...

Read More

June 13, 2024

Supreme Court Rejects FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine on Technicality

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 13th, 2024| Link Contact: Victor Nieves, 513-719-5813 Supreme Court Rejects FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic...

Read More